ARS

Back then during the atomic-happy era... When you can sell radioactive material as a child's toy and no one bats an eye

That's why it's concentrated into radioactive sludge first and solidified to make it easier to store. Most radioactive waste storage bunker is designed to keep radioactive waste safe and store them for decaying, which does take thousands or millions of years. In fact, one of the problem in storing nuclear waste is finding a way how to make the storage site still obviously dangerous for millions of years, since a warning sign of "Danger, nuclear waste disposal area" won't last very long compared to the time required for complete decay. Those radioactive waste could outlast human civilization, and due to the length of time involved, liquid isn't the best form for storing radioactive stuff for that long

It's very useful for building spaceplane, good for aesthetic, saves part count and adjusting craft's balance

64 is going down... 64 is going down hard... 64 is going down... We're going down!!! Super 64 is going down! I repeat, Super 64 is going down! All available units proceed to secure the crash site, over [Just another day at KSC ]

The water in direct contact with the core is used to generate steam for turning the turbine as well as for cooling the core. Some reactor employ liquid cooling system that's separated from core liquid, but some has a system where core liquid is used directly as a steam before being cooled and put back into the core. Not all nuclear reactor use water as a cooling medium, there's also gas-cooled reactor, which uses carbon dioxide gas. It is common for medium active wastes in the nuclear industry to be treated with ion exchange or other means to concentrate the radioactivity into a small volume. The much less radioactive bulk (after treatment) is often then discharged. For instance, it is possible to use a ferric hydroxide floc to remove radioactive metals from aqueous mixtures. After the radioisotopes are absorbed onto the ferric hydroxide, the resulting sludge can be placed in a metal drum before being mixed with cement to form a solid waste form. This solid waste can then be stored in nuclear disposal facility and handled like any other solid radioactive waste such as depleted fuel rods

We humans evolved on, and (so far) all grew up on, Earth. We instinctively expect the air to be breatheable, the temperature to be liveable, the gravity to be 9.8 m/s2, the days to last 24 hours, trees and grass, animals and plants and fungi, et cetera, et cetera. The sad fact is, though, that no other planet we've detected thus far is even remotely habitable by human standards. The bigger ones are Jupiter-like balls of gas, while the smaller ones are almost universally airless balls of rocks or balls of ice. The few worlds we've found that do have both an atmosphere and a solid surface have been blanketed in gases that no human can breathe, at pressures anywhere from near-vacuum to 90 times Earth's sea level. While it's theoretically possible that a planet out there might harbor life as we know it, it would have to fit a long, narrow list of parameters, and even then, the kind of life that might have actually evolved there will most likely be very different from the multicellular-eukaryote-rich biome inhabiting Mother Terra. In order for a planet to be able to support life as we know it on its surface at all, it will have to lie in a very narrow range of distances from its parent star. Too close, and any water would evaporate. Too far, and any water would freeze. Liquid water — and life as we know it requires liquid water — can only exist if the planet lies within that narrow zone where it's receiving just the right amount of energy from its star for the surface temperature to allow it. This is called the star's "comfort zone," or "Goldilocks Zone" (as in: not too close, not too far, but juuuuuuuust right). The exact width of a star's Golilocks zone is a matter of some debate, due to the fact that some atmospheres can trap heat (Venus) and some can't, and a number of other factors that astrogeologists can make whole careers out of. All we can say for sure is that, for a star as bright and hot as the sun, Venus is too close, Earth is clearly within the Goldilocks zone, and Mars is probably close to the tail end of it. How far away from the star the Goldilocks zone is depends on the star's energy output. A very dim red dwarf star, like Wolf 359, would require a planet to be only about 1.5 million kilometers away from it to receive as much energy as Earth does from our sun — that's only 0.01 A.U., 1% of the Earth-sun distance. A bright and powerful star like Sirius A, on the other hand, would require a planet to be 5 A.U. away from it to receive as much energy as the Earth does from the sun. Interestingly, both of those distances have potentially disastrous consequences. If a planet is only 0.01 A.U. away from its star, the star's tidal influence is going to be enormous. The strength of tidal forces varies directly with the larger object's (i.e. the star's) mass, but inversely with distance cubed. The tidal forces on a planet only 0.01 A.U. from a star 1/10 the mass of the sun are, therefore, going to be 0.1 / 0.013 = 100,000 times as strong as the tidal forces the Earth experiences from the sun. This all but guarantees that the planet will be locked in synchronous rotation with its star — that is, its rotational period must match its orbital period, so the same side is always facing the star. One side of such a planet would be in perpetual daylight, while the other would be in perpetual night. The climate on such a world would be much different than the climate on Earth. Dim stars also have the disadvantage that their Goldilocks Zones are going to be narrower. There is disagreement as to exactly how wide the Goldilocks Zone around the sun is — different models compute widths anywhere from 0.5 A.U. down to 0.02 A.U. — but however wide the zone actually is, it will be proportionally narrower with a dimmer star (and wider with a brighter star). The star 61 Cygni is about 1/10 of the sun's brightness, so its Goldilocks Zone will be (the square root of 1/10) of the sun's, or a little less than 1/3 of the sun's Goldilocks Zone distance. But this means both the inner edge and the outeredge of the Goldilocks Zone will be 1/3 of the distance compared with the sun — and that means the zone as a whole will only be 1/3 as wide. The narrower the Goldilocks Zone, the less a chance that a planet would happen to have formed within it. Worse, many red dwarf stars — Wolf 359 included — are flare stars, which emit semi-regular bursts of X-rays every bit as powerful as those emitted from a flare taking place on the sun. At 0.01 A.U., that much ionizing radiation can easily disassemble the organic molecules necessary for life. And X-rays can scatter. Regular flare outbursts so close by probably means that any life would have to be buried underground. A planet orbiting Sirius A at 5 A.U. wouldn't have any of these problems, of course, but it runs into another issue. Sirius is a binary system. Sirius B (a white dwarf) makes one complete orbit around Sirius A every half century, and at one point in this orbit the two stars come within 8 A.U. of each other. As any budding astrophysicist will tell you, the three-body problem is a chaotic one for which there is no solution. Any planet orbiting Sirius A farther away than 1/4 of this 8 A.U. closest-approach distance will be thrown out of the star system by Sirius B's gravity. The farthest a stable planetary orbit can be from Sirius A is, therefore, only 2 A.U. — which is barely 2/5 of the Goldilocks Zone distance. Therefore, no planet can exist in the habitable, liquid water zone around Sirius A. (A planet could theoretically orbit both Sirius A and Sirius B as a pair, but then its minimum orbital distance has to be at least four times the greatest separation distance between the two stars in their orbit of each other. Sirius B's orbit is rather eccentric, and at one point in its orbit it's over 30 A.U. away from Sirius A. A planet orbiting both Sirius A and B would therefore need to be at least 120 A.U. away from their common center of mass, and at that distance the combined brightness of Sirius A and Sirius B would be far too weak to keep the planet from freezing.) Even if a planet happens to lie within the Goldilocks Zone, that's no guarantee that it can harbor surface life — let alone that life will actually arise there on its own, or that said life will have had sufficient time to evolve to the point where space-faring beings can emerge. The atmospheric pressure must be high enough for liquid water to exist, and that can't happen unless the planet has sufficiently strong surface gravity to keep its atmosphere from escaping into space. You'll note that the Martian atmosphere is extremely thin, less than 1% of the surface pressure of Earth's atmosphere. One factor that contibutes to Mars's thin atmosphere is this low surface gravity. Despite being farther from the sun than the Earth, and thus receiving less heat that could potentially boil its atmosphere away into space, Mars still has less of an atmosphere than the Earth does. A resonably strong surface gravity may be required for a planet to retain a thick atmosphere. There are exceptions in our own solar system, of course: Saturn's moon Titan has less than a sixth of Earth's surface gravity yet its surface atmospheric pressure is higher than Earth's, and while Venus is both closer to the sun and has only 90% of Earth's surface gravity its surface pressure is ninety times that of Earth's atmosphere. But you need at least some gravity, and possibly quite a lot of gravity, to retain an atmosphere within the Goldilocks Zone. Another factor that can mean no life-bearing planets are possible in a given star system is the lack of heavy elements. The Milky Way galaxy is over ten billion years old. When it first formed, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen and helium; almost no heavier elements (like carbon and the other elements necessary for organic life) existed. Several generations of stars have been born and died since then, and some of the more spectacular star deaths have peppered the interstellar medium with heavy elements synthesized by those stars' death throes. The sun, for instance, is a third-generation star — the cloud of gas and dust out of which it formed contained material expelled by a supernova which, in turn, had formed out of an earlier cloud that contained material from an even earlier supernova. This is why there was enough carbon, oxygen, silicon, iron, etc. to form solid, rocky planets and organic molecules. Astrophysicists refer to all elements heavier than helium as "metals" (even if the element in question is oxygen or neon), and sometimes call a star system's heavy element abundance its "metallicity." By contrast, Barnard's Star (a red dwarf approximately 6 light-years from the sun) formed in the Milky Way's first wave of star formation. It has almost no heavy elements. If the star itself is metal-poor, that means the cloud out of which it formed was also metal-poor, and therefore any planets that would have formed out of that cloud would be metal-poor as well. There might be some Jupiter-like balls of hydrogen or helium orbiting Barnard's Star, but there isn't going to be anything with a solid surface. So, to sum up, the requirements for a habitable Earth-like planet are: 1. The planet must lie within the Goldilocks Zone for its star. 2. The star cannot be too dim, since this will mean its Goldilocks Zone will be too narrow, any planet in the zone will be in synchronous rotation with the star, and the Goldilocks Zone will lie within the Danger Zone for stellar flares. 3. If a binary star system, the companion star cannot come closer to the primary than 4 times the Goldilocks Zone distance. 4. The star system cannot be metal-poor, or (if its metallicity isn't known) so old that it would have formed when the galactic medium was still metal-poor. 5. The planet cannot be too small or light, as this will prevent it from retaining an atmosphere. Note that if you're willing to accept non Earth-like planets, many more possibilities open up. For example, Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, is thought to contain liquid water despite being nowhere near the Goldilocks zone. A thick or rapidly rotating atmosphere like Venus's can distribute heat evenly around the planet, thus solving the problem with tidal locking mentioned above. Greenhouse effect atmospheres, tidal heating from a nearby planet, and internal heating from other unknown mechanisms can all lead to potentially habitable conditions in unexpected places. However, these all lead to new problems and obviously won't resemble Earth. For that matter, even liquid water might not be necessary. There are theories that life might be possible with alternate biochemistries based on liquid ammonia, methane, or even interstellar gases. Since all we have to go on is observations of Earth, there's no way to tell for sure if this is actually possible. But the less Earthlike you get, the more problems you have with an actual story involving anything other than Aliens. A hypothetical ammonia based organism, for instance, would constantly argue over the thermostat with Earthlings given that ammonia boils at -28F. If you want anything more interesting than bacteria to have evolved, another problem arises. The star must have been shining at roughly the same energy output for at least a couple billion years, in order to give time for complex life to have evolved. This last requirement is a real buzzkill, as it eliminates damn near every bright star you can see in Earth's night sky. Big, bright stars like Sirius A only live for a few hundred million years before they run out of gas. (The candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long, after all.) Red giant stars like Arcturus had a long, stable lifetime as a dimmer star in the past, but will only last for a couple of million years at the red giant stage — so if they did harbor life bearing planets in the past, those ecosystems were snuffed out when the star expanded to its current red giant state, and any planets in the star's newGoldilocks Zone won't have long enough for evolution to run its course. As for our Sun, its core will run outta gas some 5 billion years from now, in the meanwhile, its luminosity will increase slowly as its core contracts to continue fusing the each time more and more scarce hydrogen. That will mean serious trouble for life on Earth in just around six hundred million years from now onwards. When this happens, the sun will inflate a lot. "But wait!" I hear you cry. "If the core is no longer providing any radiative pressure to support the sun's upper layers, why will it expand instead of shrinking under its own weight?" I'm glad you asked. When the core fizzles, the layer immediately above the core will collapse down upon it, and in the process this layer will get more and more compressed until it ignites in nuclear fusion itself, forming a hydrogen-burning shell. and consume at least some of the inner planets—likely including Earth, causing a solar system level apocalypse. Even if Earth survived, its fate would be to lose whatever water remains and atmosphere, becoming a planet covered by a magma ocean under the intense light of the huge red giant Sun. This inflation will take a time in astronomical terms and will be very gradual by human-lifetime standards: computer models of evolution of Sun-like stars suggest the sun will need more than 2 billion years to grow from its end-of-main-sequence normal size to its full red-giant glory. Delta Pavonis, a star extremely similar and very close—about 20 ly—to the Sun is currently going through this phase. It started the process during the time that modern humans have existed—possibly even during recorded history—but only our descendants to the umpteenth generation will get to see the transformation in full. Astronomers have a mild interest in this star, since being the Sun's "near-identical older brother"—as we put it—its evolution will give hints about what's to come for old Sol. After a couple of million of years in this red giant phase, it will shrink again in just a few thousand years as its core begins fusing helium into carbon and oxygen. Helium ignition is a very violent process, liberating energies comparable to that of a supernova. However, all of that energy is used to re-expand the core and nothing unusual is visible from the outside. The Sun will be then a red clump star, roughly fifty times as luminous as is now and eleven times larger, re-expand again as red giant (as an Asymptotic giant branch, to be more exact) when it runs out of helium at its core 100 million years later, and then finally shed its outer layers in a breathtaking display known as a "planetary nebula." So named because such nebulas appear as an extensive disc in a telescope, and can be confused for a planet by an observer who doesn't know any better. What will remain afterward is the tiny, exposed core of the sun, now shrunk to a super-dense white dwarf the size of the Earth, slowly cooling to a black dwarf over the next quadrillion years (more than 70 times the current age of the universe). More than a few astronomers and physicists have pointed out that at least by this point, the Sun will be harboring one big-ass diamond. My prediction is, as the sun expands, the goldilocks zone would be pushed outward, roughly around the orbit of Saturn or Uranus, which could, theoretically make Titan habitable. Mercury and Venus is certainly being totally engulfed. As for gas giants, while the sun's size expands into red giant, it's temperature also become lower, so I cannot say for certain if the gas giants will be fully vaporized, but one thing is certain: gas giants WILL change. One of the theory why gas giants is so large is, since outer planets that's classified as gas giants lies on the outside of goldilocks zone, which is referred as "ice line". Water and other liquid froze, which causes them to expand in volume, so the planet-building material becomes larger, since it provides more material. So it's only a matter of guessing what's gonna happen to the gas giants if the "ice line" is pushed outward further. But I think @kerbiloid is right, Jupiter is most likely survived, albeit not like what it's used to be.

Most stars are found along something called the Main Sequence, characterized by their balance between inward gravity and outward pressure generated by hydrogen fusion. Other stars exist that are off of it and fusing other elements, or else are dead or dying. These types have varying letters (spectral classifications) applied to them, with numerical sub-groups and a corresponding informal color (you can see the color in a good telescope). The higher up the scale, the bigger (and brighter) the star, but the faster the rate at which the hydrogen in them is used up and so the shorter their lifespan. For a number of reasons, very large stars - called giants, supergiants and hypergiants - like to live at the extreme ends of the spectral scales. Giant stars really do not like to be classes F or G, seeming to stay there for a very short time while heating up or cooling down to either extreme. There are a few known, but are decidedly in the minority. In general, most of the visible giants are either class-M or rather cool class-K (Betelgeuse, Arcturus) red giants, or class-B (Eta Carinae, Rigel, Deneb) blue giants. Main Sequence Classifications, in order from hottest to coolest: O – Blue-violet stars. The hottest and most massive main sequence stars, with most of their energy output in the ultraviolet regions of the spectrum. Pretty rare, but also conspicuous. Delta Orionis and Zeta Puppis (Naos) are examples. B – Blue-white stars, e.g. Rigel, or all the bright stars in the Pleiades. A – White stars. Sirius A and Vega are examples. F – Yellow-white stars. Upsilon Andromedae and Procyon are of this type. Canopus is a rare class F giant. G – Yellow stars. The most famous is a G2V type known in Latin as Sol, and in English as The Sun. Alpha Centauri A, Tau Ceti and Zeta Reticuli are this type as well. K – Orange stars. Alpha Centauri B, Epsilon Eridani. M – Red dwarf stars. Have very long life-spans i.e. a trillion years. Proxima Centauri and Barnard's Star are of this type. Luminosity class is always V or VI, as more massive types are actually red giants, an entirely different kind of creature. If you want to memorize the above sequence, use a handy mnemonic like "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me" or "Oh Big And Ferocious Gorilla, Kill Mikey." Compressing the sun would likely increases the pressure inside, which, if I predicted correctly, would increase the luminosity and thermal output

IIRC, there's an orbital telescope mod, which creates a system where planets are hidden in map view. To find them, you need to point the telescope to the sky. You can blindly aim to the sky and hope for luck, or you can pick a reference orbit and pointing to a predicted point in the sky to find them. At first, the planet will be blurry, but over time, it's orbit is revealed, as you send probes, more information will be available. Fully exploring it will grant all science from it. It's just like real life Also, most science instrument mods do have more deeper and complex system than stock parts "right click and log xxxxx data". Take a look at Dmagic science instrument, the seismic test hammer device requires a vibration sensor to be placed on the ground some distance away, with highest science gain if 4 sensors are placed on separate points around the hammer. Asteroid sounding instrument requires the sensor pod to be placed on one side of the asteroid, and you're doing the science test on the other side. The infolog after performing science is also contains many background information or lore about the game. For example, Dmagic's oceanography and bathymetry instrument is intended to be used underwater, with different information about marine life, depending if you are on the shore, open water and even different depths There's also an outdoor science mod that requires a set-up, not just merely placing the device, but down to connecting the cables, socket, and other hardware on EVA operation (this requires KIS mod)

Well, I don't know much about cfg files, except editing the values (I might not be able to help you, sorry about that ). You can ask others or if you want a fast solution, just launch the mission with both material bays

Well, from my experience, maybe it's better to carry both material bay. Aside for precaution for "part not recognized" issue, it also gives extra science

I'm testing a new jet, with emphasis on maneuverability It's able to make a tight maneuvers... Which really handy when it's about to smash into the ground... Or mission control... (Jeb looks excited though)

It needs stock material bay. Modded parts are usually not counted in contract mission, especially if it's available in stock, so you can't replace "material bay" with "modded material bay", even though it's technically do the same thing unless you're using modded contract system or the part that's being requested isn't available in stock (for example, if a probe needs a gamma ray spectrometer, then it's obviously need a mod part, since GRS isn't available in stock)

The vacuum engine is inside the cargobay, just behind the mk1 command pod. Solaris Hypernautic mod has Kannae Drives, which is an engine powered by virtual particles and electricity. It can be placed or clipped inside parts since it has no exhaust, so it doesn't damage the part (though it can be overdrived to provide much more thrust, at the cost of rapid overheating and dramatically increased fuel consumption). Kannae Drives has an advantage of being safe to place anywhere and has renewable fuel source (though it needs a lot of electricity), the disadvantage is being very low thrust (roughly on par with poodle, it's useless for atmospheric flight, unless the gravity is low enough like on duna) and needs a lot of power, both for running it and renewing it's fuel source. It's basically ion engine on steroid Note: I didn't tweak the OPT engine

Built a mini SSTO and do some trips, to Mun... Minmus... Duna... Ike... Dres... Jool... Laythe... Vall... Pol... Bop... Gilly... And Eve... I didn't visit Tylo since the vacuum engine isn't powerful enough on Tylo. The trip ends at Eve, now I need to send a rescue mission As a bonus, I landed on Duna just to watch the Ikelipse

Back then I'm imagining the moon battle from Gundam SEED

Since the concept of warp/ wormhole / FTL travel is born from Sci-fi stories, Here's a bit of info to explain the scale of technical impossibility of "game-breaking technology" of interstellar travel in sci-fi when explained using hard science: The common scenario of sci-fi interstellar travel goes like this: "Let's say the idea of a spaceship carying 10 times its empty weight in fuel sickens you. You want the space aboard your space ship to house your colorful characters, dazzling weapons, holodecks, shopping malls, and other fun and excitement — not deck after deck full of boring old propellant. And you want to allow for long patrols without having to refuel at every destination. So, you equip your spaceship with a gravity manipulation Reactionless Drive that allows her to accelerate without throwing material out of her tailpipe." But hold on. There's a problem: First, if you allow them to accelerate without pushing anything, they are now violating one of the most basic laws known to physics: the conservation of momentum. In the real world, you can't apply a force to an object in one direction without causing an equal-and-opposite force on some other object. Rockets fly up because their exhaust flies down. Jumping up pushes the Earth ever-so-slightly downward; falling back to the ground afterward pulls the Earth ever-so-slightly up. By letting your space ship violate this basic law, you're saying that momentum is not always conserved. What other circumstances in your universe will cause momentum not to be conserved? Do the laws of Newton simply get held in abeyance every time someone switches on a gravity generator? Are there natural phenomena that accomplish the same thing? Second, are you also violating the conservation of energy? A 1000 tonne spaceship traveling 1/10 of the speed of light has a kinetic energy of 450 quintillion Joules, equal to 100,000 megatons of TNT. That energy had to come from somewhere. Did it come from burning some sort of fuel on board your space ship, to power the generators? If you used the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium as your fuel source, and you managed to create a fusion reactor technology that's nearly 100% efficient, you'd have to burn at least 350 tonnes of hydrogen to obtain that much energy, which is a third of your spaceship's own mass. (This isn't as bad a mass-ratio situation as if you'd used a plain-old momentum-conserving fusion rocket, but it's still pretty significant.) And you'll have to burn just as much again to slow your space ship back down at the end of your trip. If this is too much for you, and you decide your reactionless gravity drive simply works by tapping into the magical gravity waves of the universe and surfing along them with only minimal power requirements, then your space ship's kinetic energy is being created "ex nihilo". You've got yourself a free energy machine! Just strap your space ship to one end of a long lever, strap the other end to a huge electric generator, and fly in circles. You can generate enough energy to power your entire civilization this way, with no cost in natural resources. This will play absolute havoc with the setting's economy. You'll have to throw away that whole story about space empires' war over Space Oil. Third, if any 1000 tonne space ship can easily accelerate to a tenth of light speed, then every two-bit spaceship owner has in his possession a weapon of mass destruction. Those 100,000 megatons of TNT-equivalent kinetic energy will act like 100,000 megatons of actual TNT if they strike a planet. Want a future populated by plucky tramp space-freighters and sneaky space pirates? It ain't gonna happen if every ship is a Hiroshima-on-steroids waiting to happen. Every spacecraft captain will be on too short a leash. Any spacecraft that even looks suspicious will be killed before it can become a threat. (And, yes, all fast-moving spacecraft, and even stationary spacecraft, will eventually be detected — there ain't no Stealth In Space.) Any technological marvel that sidesteps the Real Life roadblocks facing space travel has the potential for unintended consequences. Thermonuclear torchships? They've got the same "spaceship = weapon of mass destruction" problem that reactionless drives do, albeit on a more manageable scale. FTL Travel is one of the bigger thorns in the side of the Hard SF genre. Special Relativity makes it absolutely clear: it is physically impossible to accelerate an object with any kind of mass so that it's moving faster than the speed of light. Even accelerating an object to the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy. However, we've also pretty much established that there are no other technological species on any planet in the Solar system other than Earth. If we want to have space adventures involving high-tech aliens, we'll have to travel to other star systems, and the distances involved are so enormous that it would take years to get from one star to another if you were limited to sub-light speeds. Science Fiction writers have had to compromise, and allow some means of travelling faster-than-light which didn't turn their universe into something totally unrecognizable to a modern reader. Therefore, the ability to move faster-than-light has received more attention in SF than any other fantastic concept. The very worst problem with FTL travel (or even just FTL Radio) is a certain niggling consequence of Time Dilation. When travelling at any speed, even a brisk walk, relative to somebody else, you'll see his clock move slower than yours — but he'll see your clock move slower than his. This way-counterintuitive state of affairs means that some distant events in the universe which are in your future are in the other guy's past, and vice-versa. Without FTL travel, though, this isn't a problem. Einstein and Minkowsky established that for any event that's in Oberver A's future and Observer B's past, no matter how far in Observer A's future the event is, it will always be far enough away that any light-speed signals from this event would not reach Observer A until the event was also in Observer A's past. When plotted on a space-time graph, the signals from the event would stretch out in spacetime in a "light cone," which guarantees that the signal will not reach any observer in the universe until the event is in that observer's past. To put it another way, let's say that in Observer A's reference frame, Event 1 occurs before Event 2, but in Observer B's reference frame, Event 2 occurs before Event 1. Light cones maintains causality by ensuring that, if Observer A would find out about Event 1 before Event 2, Observer B cannot find out about Event 2 before information about Event 1 is theoretically available to him. By going faster than light, even just FTL Radio, you can receive information about events that are in your own future. You can perceive Event 2, which was caused by Event 1, before Event 1 actually occurs in your reference frame. In other words, Time Travel. How do veteran SF writers handle the time travel consequences of FTL travel? Most of them don't. They simply sweep it under the rug and hope no one will notice. Those authors who do address it often end up with bizarre universes where wars are fought before they've even started, and characters can shoot their own grandfathers. The other main problem with FTL travel is what it can do to life in SF universe even without time travel. If your space pirates can just jump into hyperspace at the first sign of trouble, you'll never have any exciting space battles. If you can ram a planet or another spacecraft while travelling at FTL speeds, you risk turning even the tiniest FTL shuttlecraft into a planet-killer that will put even the largest, fastest slower-than-light kamikaze to shame. The last problem with FTL travel is more practical: we don't know how to do it in Real Life. Every attempt to come up with a way to do so has run into intractable problems. Quantum entanglement can occur instantaneously across vast distances, but it can't convey any actual information faster than c. The Alcubierre space warp requires the energy output of an entire sun just to create, and there's no guarantee that you could actually make the space warp move — and even if you could, there's even less of a chance that it could move faster than c. Wormholes, if they even exist, will spontaneously collapse faster than it's possible to traverse them.

Awesome! Will try it out! I always wanted to build a solar sailer in KSP. One question, does the sail also function as solar panel too? Or purely for propulsion?

HRP heat resistant part. Outdated mod, but still works in 1.4. For the rotor, I'm using airplane plus link for HRP: https://www.curseforge.com/kerbal/ksp-mods/heat-resistant-parts-hrp

Blackshark reporting...

Well, I'm not really a type of player who enjoy killing, even in videogame. If I can play a game as non-lethal or pacifist, I'll do it. And what I wrote above is true. I deleted my savegame quite a lot and restarted from scratch simply because there's a kerbal that's beyond saving, such as in munar suborbital trajectory with no way of slowing down, dies because the lack of supplies, or simply dies in crash with no way of reverting it. Not being perfectionist, I just prefer to keep things safe and everyone alive. Probes are considered as expendable. I always send a pilotless craft controlled by probe to another planet and test it if I can make it back home. If successful, then I'll be confident enough to send a manned mission. On the other hand, once a save file has completely unlocked a tech tree, then I'll make a backup of it so I didn't have to do the science grind all over again (Unless when I forgot to backup the backup )

1. No alt+f12 cheat, unless testing something ridiculous 2. Do not kill kerbal. If a single kerbal is even listed as MIA/ KIA in astronaut center, whole save game is considered bricked and must start over from scratch 3. Parts and ships are considered as expendable asset. Especially if it can bring back a kerbal/ prevent their death 4. Cheaty mod are allowed, but blatant cheating is not allowed 5. Except for the first 4 "tutorial" contract that appears on mission control, I tried to minimize the number of contract used to fund my space program

Testing new helicopter, pretty good flight performance, I still need to practice my landing skill though. I named it Theodora Cute little thing

First of all, discussing about jump/ wormhole ship in real-life scientific viewpoint is hard. We have very little information about how to teleport (jumping is basically teleport), and especially, about wormhole, since we haven't even send a probe there, we don't even know if it leads to somewhere, so all current information about them is purely from observation, speculation and theoretical calculations Second, the laws of physics simply prevents it. Unless you have infinite energy and some plot-device level of propulsion technology, we simply ain't going anywhere. Gravity, orbital mechanic, energy requirements, spaceship design, material and most importantly heat dissipation, is the problem that must be overcome before we even started thinking about this. Even without "Jumping" shenanigans (which is basically teleport, if we want to be literal), the idea of interstellar travel in respectable amount of time using cold hard science is still beyond our reach, judging by our current technology. If we're talking about "conventional" propulsion techniques (i.e. rockets of one sort or another, whether chemical, nuclear, anti-matter, or whatever else), even approaching lightspeed would require more energy per second than all of Earth's industries use per year. While this may be explained by advances in technology, the general formulas for velocity and acceleration are such that as you approach the speed of light, the energy needed to accelerate anything with non-zero mass increases asymptotically. In other words, you need an infinite amount of energy (and an infinite amount of time) to accelerate to the speed of light. It isn't just an engineering challenge — it is fundamentally impossible. The idea of jump/ warp/ wormhole ship first appears during the age where sci-fi writers started to write speculative fiction about what lies beyond our sky. At first, they wrote about going to moon, then going to venus. After the space race, we started exploring other planets, and they naturally went nuts since those celestial bodies out there does not look like what they imagined/ speculated before, so they changed their setting to another star, but since the distance involved is literally astronomical (pun intended), and audience simply want to see the story progress to somewhere interesting in space (which is very very far when we're talking about distance in space), a plot device for travel was invented, and thus the concept of jump drive, warp, FTL and recently, wormhole portal was born. Jumping/ warping/ wormhole mechanic is poorly explained in the sci-fi story. They are simply plot device for moving between star systems, since without such progression, the plot of space sci-fi won't go anywhere

Better yet, stack 4 or 5 of those donut tanks on top of each other, put oscar-B on the bottom and an engine, put a cap on the other side, and the hollow room inside is enough for a single command seat for a kerbal to sit inside (If you click "board", they'll teleport, already sitting inside. If you "leave seat", they'll clipped and teleported outside). Just found out this morning when I'm thinking that if the donut tanks can be used like lifebuoy, why can't I have kerbal sit inside?

Well, technically, White Base is the basis design for archangel, and the craft that I made has twin vertical tail on the rear, but the front is like the original White Base so... I guess it's a hybrid?